From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758180AbbKSJvm (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 04:51:42 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:48105 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758034AbbKSJvj (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 04:51:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/32] HiSilicon SAS driver To: "Martin K. Petersen" References: <1447779059-136143-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <564CB40B.1050705@huawei.com> CC: "JBottomley@odin.com" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "pawel.moll@arm.com" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" , "galak@codeaurora.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linuxarm , "john.garry2@mail.dcu.ie" , "hare@suse.de" , "xuwei (O)" , "zhangfei.gao@linaro.org" From: John Garry Message-ID: <564D9A90.2070304@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:46:56 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.137.235] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.564D9AA9.010D,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 716def4105ace2b9f4b3aa3f9a4b1f54 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 19/11/2015 03:15, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "John" == John Garry writes: > > John> thanks, please note that we still have the dependency on > John> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg452833.html > > John> Without it the driver can only be built into the kernel, and not > John> as a module. > > I have your driver in a staging branch rather than the main 4.5 SCSI > queue because I wanted to see what kind of additional fallout I'd get > from the zeroday testing. > > It's not a problem for me to wait for that patch to go in (or take it > through SCSI if that makes things easier). > The issue is the I don't know if Rob will approve the requested patch. As an alternative I can make my driver not depend on it. So I could make a v6 patchset or just send a supplementary patch on top of v5 patchset. Thanks, John